Re: REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts

by windchime 30.07.13 20:11

Portia wrote:
chris wrote:
Portia wrote:
russiandoll wrote:photoshopping or not, I find the following significant regarding this photograph : [ bold mine ]

A child with coloboma will receive specialist care at hospital during the early years to monitor the effect of the coloboma and their eye health. The frequency of these checks will depend on the child's needs. Children who have coloboma can be more at risk of glaucoma (increased eye pressure) and retinal detachment. There are treatments for both of these conditions which the hospital would explore with you.
If your child's eye health is stable and no further complications appear then they will usually attend an eye test every six months up to the age of seven years and then annually. These eye tests will usually take place with an optician or orthoptist.
Children with coloboma may need glasses. Glasses cannot correct the vision problems caused by the coloboma. However, glasses can correct short-sightedness or long-sightedness which can help to correct the parts of vision that haven't been affected by coloboma.
Sometimes cosmetic contact lenses may be considered at a later stage. These can help to make the pupil look round rather than keyhole shaped.
Prescription sunglasses due to the light-sensitivity may also be suggested, as may some low vision aids and equipment to help a child make the most of their sight.

Also, considering the prominence given to this eye defect by the parents, medical records would contain information re Maddie's eye.
It looks much more than a fleck on the cover of Kate's book. It looks like a classic coloboma imo as described on the RNIB web site.
Could it be, that the medical records (witheld) would have shown no coloboma at all, causing the marketing ploy to fall flat on its face, and secondly, to have scuppered a zillion sightings from all over the world, including the only real one: that of Maddie happily running around in her new environment, uncolombomaed, and therefore undetected?

But if there was no coloboma at all, surely Madeleine's GP would have alerted the police to this obvious lie?
IF she had a GP.None has come forward or be named.
And if he/she would have wanted to breach professional confidentality, going 'public' with CR lurking in the wings?

Having read the statements of the McCanns 2 Doctors I have a niggling thought that won't go away.

Dr P Hussey was their Dr from 2000 until quote 'March 2006' He states he never saw MBM for medical purposes.

Dr I R Schofield was their Dr following their move to Rothley and was their registered Dr from March 2007. He states he never saw MBM (they were registered with him for 2 months prior to PDL)

1. Why change Drs if you only move approx. 4 miles down the road?
2. Who was their Dr between March 2006 and March 2007?
3. If MBM had 5 bouts of absence from nursery (as told by the nursery teacher) within 6 months (and the 6 months prior to PDL) all for colds and high temperatures then surely at least one trip to a Dr would have been necessary - IMO - that's a lot of colds and absences in a 6 month period - IMO

Also if you check out Google - search ( dr p hussey Leicester gp error)??

Why in 4 years can neither Dr claim to have seen MBM and what happened for 12 months in between?

(sorry if this has been said before)

by Guest 30.07.13 20:29

Poe wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:Who is/was Madeleine, each time I look at photos of her it just doesn't seem like the same little girl. I've not see this photo before, her nose seems different. Is it Madeleine?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What is that car in the back-ground. It looks like an old black one, a bit of a banger. Could it be a photo of Kate, changed a bit, looking at some 35 years ago when that sort of shiny material, fluffy edged jacket was the sort of stuff that C&A produced as ski wear for a growing UK winter skiing holiday market. I haven't seen that sort of material for a long time. Is any one current with that sort of material these days. With my kids all grown up, I'm out of the loop now.

That cannot be Madeleine. Her permanent (adult) front teeth are clearly visible making the girl in this photo 6 or 7 years old. I think this is probably an old photo of Kate.

This was definitely presented as being of Madeleine - note the ribbon and phone numbers in the top right.

Here are all (I think) of the photos that have been issued.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I certainly think this one looks like an old photo of Kate though.

by Guest 30.07.13 20:30

There is reference to Dr. P. Hussey here

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Dr P G Hussey
Melton Road, Syston, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE7 2EQ.
Dr P G Hussey is a general practitioner who offers a range of health care advice to patients. Dr P G Hussey is based in Melton Road, Syston - see map for location of Melton Road.

by tiny 30.07.13 20:38

I don't think this a photo of madeliene,the teeth are different,unless this is what madeliene really looked like

by Mike 30.07.13 20:42

tiny wrote:I don't think this a photo of madeliene,the teeth are different,unless this is what madeliene really looked like

And the nose looks different from Kate's, unless she had a nose job.

by MRNOODLES 30.07.13 20:54

Picture from gerry's blog

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

odd innit

by loopzdaloop 30.07.13 22:40

windchime wrote:
Portia wrote:
chris wrote:
Portia wrote:
russiandoll wrote:photoshopping or not, I find the following significant regarding this photograph : [ bold mine ]

A child with coloboma will receive specialist care at hospital during the early years to monitor the effect of the coloboma and their eye health. The frequency of these checks will depend on the child's needs. Children who have coloboma can be more at risk of glaucoma (increased eye pressure) and retinal detachment. There are treatments for both of these conditions which the hospital would explore with you.
If your child's eye health is stable and no further complications appear then they will usually attend an eye test every six months up to the age of seven years and then annually. These eye tests will usually take place with an optician or orthoptist.
Children with coloboma may need glasses. Glasses cannot correct the vision problems caused by the coloboma. However, glasses can correct short-sightedness or long-sightedness which can help to correct the parts of vision that haven't been affected by coloboma.
Sometimes cosmetic contact lenses may be considered at a later stage. These can help to make the pupil look round rather than keyhole shaped.
Prescription sunglasses due to the light-sensitivity may also be suggested, as may some low vision aids and equipment to help a child make the most of their sight.

Also, considering the prominence given to this eye defect by the parents, medical records would contain information re Maddie's eye.
It looks much more than a fleck on the cover of Kate's book. It looks like a classic coloboma imo as described on the RNIB web site.
Could it be, that the medical records (witheld) would have shown no coloboma at all, causing the marketing ploy to fall flat on its face, and secondly, to have scuppered a zillion sightings from all over the world, including the only real one: that of Maddie happily running around in her new environment, uncolombomaed, and therefore undetected?

But if there was no coloboma at all, surely Madeleine's GP would have alerted the police to this obvious lie?
IF she had a GP.None has come forward or be named.
And if he/she would have wanted to breach professional confidentality, going 'public' with CR lurking in the wings?

Having read the statements of the McCanns 2 Doctors I have a niggling thought that won't go away.

Dr P Hussey was their Dr from 2000 until quote 'March 2006' He states he never saw MBM for medical purposes.

Dr I R Schofield was their Dr following their move to Rothley and was their registered Dr from March 2007. He states he never saw MBM (they were registered with him for 2 months prior to PDL)

1. Why change Drs if you only move approx. 4 miles down the road?
2. Who was their Dr between March 2006 and March 2007?
3. If MBM had 5 bouts of absence from nursery (as told by the nursery teacher) within 6 months (and the 6 months prior to PDL) all for colds and high temperatures then surely at least one trip to a Dr would have been necessary - IMO - that's a lot of colds and absences in a 6 month period - IMO

Also if you check out Google - search ( dr p hussey Leicester gp error)??

Why in 4 years can neither Dr claim to have seen MBM and what happened for 12 months in between?

(sorry if this has been said before)

I have two perspectives on this:

1) GP's are the people who are generally not the most successful in medical school (if they were any good at anything, they would be a specialist) [apart from the few who it is their passion]. Would they really need to go to a GP to be told to either a> take rest, B> take lots of fluids, c> take painkillers or d> take antibiotics. If I was a medical doctor and had all the training of a GP, why would I go to one to be told something that I would already know? For another example, if you are a mechanic, you are likely to fix your own car! What would the need be for the Mccann's to take their child to a GP to tell them what they know? They certainly won't need a 'sick note' for their child.

The other perspective is that if Maddie did have various difficulties associated with her sleep pattern, or developmental conditions related to the coloboma [if it existed] then it would be more likely that she was being seen by a specialist.

some GP surgeries are also quite strict with their geographical boundaries as to who is allowed to go to their surgery and if you change your address won't let you continue on at that surgery.

by Woofer 30.07.13 23:33

The GMC advises against GPs treating their own family, but apparently some do, though it was found that consultants generally did not.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Anyway Maddie would surely have had her immunisations done at a surgery (of which there are many these days) unless they helped themselves to the vials of vaccine and injected their own children at home.

by Miraflores 31.07.13 7:54

Vaccinations would be done by the nurse in a clinic - there would not be a GP involved.

by Guest 31.07.13 8:29

Two childhood photo's of KM

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Innocence: A young Kate McCann, right, takes her first communion with lifelong friend Nicky Gill

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
A family photo of Kate McCann as a child, pictured (left) with friend Nicky Gill outside a zoo

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by View-from-Ireland 31.07.13 11:36

MRNOODLES wrote:Picture from gerry's blog

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

odd innit

OMG!!!!!!!!

That is THE photo of Madeleine, the one with the coloboma. Maybe it's just me, but to me it looks like the coloboma has been either airbrushed or reduced here in the above? It used to look much clearer in other copies of that photo??

Has anybody else noticed this?

by Ayniia 31.07.13 12:45

View-from-Ireland wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:Picture from gerry's blog

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

odd innit

OMG!!!!!!!!

That is THE photo of Madeleine, the one with the coloboma. Maybe it's just me, but to me it looks like the coloboma has been either airbrushed or reduced here in the above? It used to look much clearer in other copies of that photo??

Has anybody else noticed this?

Just noticed that yes!!! OMG indeed!

by windchime 31.07.13 15:18

Ayniia wrote:
View-from-Ireland wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:Picture from gerry's blog

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

odd innit

OMG!!!!!!!!

That is THE photo of Madeleine, the one with the coloboma. Maybe it's just me, but to me it looks like the coloboma has been either airbrushed or reduced here in the above? It used to look much clearer in other copies of that photo??

Has anybody else noticed this?
Just noticed that yes!!! OMG indeed!

Can someone who has far more knowledge of how to do these things than me put these two pictures side by side so we can compare the differences please?

Where did this particular one come from exactly by the way?

Thanks in advance!

by MRNOODLES 31.07.13 18:20

windchime wrote:
Ayniia wrote:
View-from-Ireland wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:Picture from gerry's blog

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

odd innit

OMG!!!!!!!!

That is THE photo of Madeleine, the one with the coloboma. Maybe it's just me, but to me it looks like the coloboma has been either airbrushed or reduced here in the above? It used to look much clearer in other copies of that photo??

Has anybody else noticed this?
Just noticed that yes!!! OMG indeed!
Can someone who has far more knowledge of how to do these things than me put these two pictures side by side so we can compare the differences please?

Where did this particular one come from exactly by the way?

Thanks in advance!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by MRNOODLES 31.07.13 18:23

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Off the same gallery

Which one has been tampered with?

by **tigger** 31.07.13 19:01

Amazing!
Both have been 'improved' - for a start the highly unnatural eyelashes
Spiky and very black - the skin in high magnification is airbrushed to perfection and the bags under her eyes have been eliminated at the same time.

I have no idea where Pamalan got this version. I doubt that TM ever posted this considering the coloboma is present in all the age advanced photos.

SY surely can't ditch it as well?

If you enlarge the coloboma one you can see the masking quite clearly - the nose seems to have been left alone.

by Monty Heck 31.07.13 20:08

MRNOODLES wrote:Picture from gerry's blog

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

odd innit

Not much sign of an iris fleck / coloboma there, unless much mistaken, even magnified to 400% on the zoom, hardly a mark to be seen. So is this the origninal of a photo that was altered to increase the "fleck" as a good marketing ploy for the campaign?

by worriedmum 31.07.13 21:00

where were these originally posted, please, and when?

by stillsloppingout 31.07.13 22:21

Its not a pro photo , as the background is pitch black , it was probably not taken on a SLR , lack of depth of field .
I have basic Photoshop ability , when i send to papers and mag's , i sharpen [ usually 30% !!! ] and a bit of auto contrast levels and thats it .

My take on all the pics is Gerry deliberately picked a varied range of pics to muddy the waters , in a [ missing person ] case the LAST picture taken is the shot as it is the latest image .

Gerry set out to confuse the issue ,including the Football top pic to re create in peoples minds the Holly and Jessica image .

It does appear that the image has had a bit of a brush up, none SLR cameras at that time would pull up to about 300 ish [ enlarging the original image makes any brushwork easier to do ] so you could do a bit with the image say improve the fleck in the eye , which it appears to have been done .

Photoshopping is NOT easy, and if done without skill can look obvious but done well it is almost impossible to tell .

The ' last pic " BTW only a fool would try and superimpose a child onto a frame . IMO

by Who?What?Where? 31.07.13 23:00

Maybe it is just me, but she look's like a porcelain, or very advanced plastic, doll, in MRNOODLES, side by side photos.

The nostril's do not look real. It might also, be very easy to change the eyes in a doll.

by Guest 31.07.13 23:05

Perhaps the idea was at one time to produce Madeleine in doll form.......like those tacky Franklin Mint dolls of Diana?

I am only half joking.

by Who?What?Where? 31.07.13 23:16

It would be a very good mis-direction from the Truth, to constantly be telling people, that they should be looking for an image of someone, that had never, even been alive. There are limitless posibilities. I just wish that we could get to the Truth.

by listener 31.07.13 23:55

Was thinking that her nose width, bottom lip etc. were different, so measured various parts of the pics - the one on the left is approx 1.2 times bigger than the other - guess that happens when digital images are transferred around.

by BerylJ 01.08.13 10:46

Who?What?Where? wrote:Maybe it is just me, but she look's like a porcelain, or very advanced plastic, doll, in MRNOODLES, side by side photos.

The nostril's do not look real. It might also, be very easy to change the eyes in a doll.

Not a spot of dirt, not a blemish, perfect pristine nostrils.

by **tigger** 01.08.13 10:50

listener wrote:Was thinking that her nose width, bottom lip etc. were different, so measured various parts of the pics - the one on the left is approx 1.2 times bigger than the other - guess that happens when digital images are transferred around.

Her nose was changed on the majority of photographs imo. If you look at the still from the staircase video (with the twins, Maddie running around) in the same gallery from Pamalan of Maddie at the bottom of the stairs, there does seem to be something strange in that area.
She is wearing eye-make up in a large number of photographs too. E.g. Swimming pool, double ice-cream, crimped hair, kitchen photos in red summer dress etc. Don't ask me why, it's beyond me.
I've not seen any close-up photo where the pale rim of the eyelid is visible.
In the one with a blue shawl she looks like a 'little woman' - the full make-up photo is in the same vein. A 'baby woman'. Don't like it at all.
In the pale photograph the nose emerges like a foreign object from the blue/pink 'foam' of the skin treatment.

The photograph with the fluffy hooded jacket, definitely Kate. Are they laughing at us?

This has gone rather off topic, so to get it back: Dr. Roberts is spot on. Whitewash nr. 2 or 3? It's becoming an industry and all this noise and posturing by the masters of spin is no longer just an insult to our intelligence. It takes no account of hard evidence although the likes of us are still a thorn in their side and I'm not even talking about TM.

by MRNOODLES 04.08.13 23:20

Just a follow up post to where the origins of this pic came from.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

According to this site

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It was published by AUSTRIA illustrated the Sunday supplement in 2007

by jozi 05.08.13 10:01

Who?What?Where? wrote:It would be a very good mis-direction from the Truth, to constantly be telling people, that they should be looking for an image of someone, that had never, even been alive. There are limitless posibilities. I just wish that we could get to the Truth.

I have thought along this line too.........but why do it ? They have had help from the government from the beginning of Maddie going missing ?

by BerylJ 05.08.13 10:12

MRNOODLES wrote:Just a follow up post to where the origins of this pic came from.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

According to this site

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It was published by AUSTRIA illustrated the Sunday supplement in 2007

This picture does show a slight difference in shade of colour rather than the dark mark we have become accustomed to seeing. When is this photograph supposed to have been taken? I am looking at Madeleine's teeth, and her teeth in the later pool picture.

by Guest 05.08.13 11:41

Judging by this picture almost certainly taken on the same day with Amelie, it was Christmas 2006.

[url=http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_m/maddy_ (22).jpg][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Unfortunately the link isn't working so this is the one for all photos.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It's halfway down on the left.

by BerylJ 05.08.13 12:55

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Judging by this picture almost certainly taken on the same day with Amelie, it was Christmas 2006.

[url=http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_m/maddy_ (22).jpg][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Unfortunately the link isn't working so this is the one for all photos.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It's halfway down on the left.

Thankyou No Fate Worse Than Death some good photographs there for age comparison as well as teeth and hair length and styles.

On some photographs you can see small teeth with many gaps, whilst some show larger more adult teeth with smaller gaps, then again some closed lips smiles which look so unsure to me. The photograph in the football strip look like a much older child than the grinning turned up nosed pool photograph. It is useful to look at the ones that contain the twins for comparison, well apart from the pool picture that has an of age Amelie and an under-age Madeleine in my opinion.

Latest topics